On The Road (2012)

I have bongo music stuck in my head now...

I've never read the On the Road, nor have I ever had much of an interest in Jack Kerouac (whom the main character of Sal was based on), but I'm generally willing to give anything a shot.  The only thing I'd heard about On the Road going in was that it often considered to be a unfilmable book, and there had been several attempts to make this over the years (mainly by Francis Ford Coppola).  When I hear unfilmable book, I think of titles like Cloud Atlas or Watchmen, but the the difference with those two is that they were much more ambitious films, with many complex characters and covering longer periods of time.  Maybe something got really lost in this adaptation of On the Road, but I didn't find that to be the case here at all.

On the Road focuses on a small group of twenty-somethings over a few years in their lives from the late 40's to early 50's.  The story primarily follows the characters of Sal Paradise (Sam Riley) and Dean Moriarty (Garrett Hedlund).  Sal is a struggling writer who yearns for more freedom, and Dean (who was already an ex-con when they meet) is a fun loving guy, who's pretty much up for anything, or anyone.  Dean is also quite the ladies man, shacking up with Marylou (Kristen Stewart) and Camille (Kirsten Dunst).  As the title suggests, they spend a lot of time on the road, meeting people, partying and having adventures.

If I was in my early 20's, still in college and trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my life, something like what you see in On the Road would be fun to experience.  However, it's not particularly interesting to watch on screen, especially as you learn more about the characters and find that there's really not much to like about them.  Maybe this is what got lost in the adaptation, but I found all of these characters to be pretty shallow, and in the case of Dean I found him to be kind of a scumbag.  He's married and has a newborn, but he'd rather go out on the road and have more drugs and sex.  His friends seems to idolize him, rather than call him out on his behavior, or maybe suggest he stay home with his family.  Would you support the antics of your friend that's a deadbeat dad?  Instead, they share long embraces each time they meet up, as if years have passed since they all last saw each other, but it's only been a few months at a time.

The lengthy feeling between meetups is likely due to the fact that On the Road is pretty slowly paced.  At one point, I checked my watch thinking the movie must be close to over only to see I was only at the one hour mark.  I still had an hour left to go!  At this point, I felt like the movie was a bit of a repeating loop, because you just see them do the same things over and over again: more driving, more sex, and more partying.  It feels routine and less interesting as it goes on.  Even when there are attempts to show you other sides of their characters you don't come away with a better understanding of them, but rather liking them less for their behavior.

That's pretty much all I got out On the Road, which I realize may be missing the point of the book, but I'm reviewing what I saw on screen, not a book I've never read or a film's faithfulness to it.  I'm just calling it like I see it.

I liked the performances for the most part, but I wonder if I would have had an easier time identifying with the characters if maybe they had gotten more familiar actors.  Kristen Stewart's not exactly a name that gets my butt in the theater.  I actually didn't mind her performance here, and thought she had some life about her for a change.  She's actually not in the movie all that much, which may be why I didn't have much of an issue with her.  I'm only seen Sam Riley in 13, and thought he was adequate.  Despite not liking Dean at all, I thought Garrett Hedlund's performance as him was strong and showed a lot of charisma.  You can see why people would initially be drawn to him.  We also get a very eclectic cast of bigger names playing very small roles.  You'll see people like Amy Adams, Terrence Howard, Elisabeth Moss, and Viggo Mortensen pop-up in random roles throughout.

It's a good looking film with lots of picturesque scenery.  As far as a period piece, it felt accurate and faithful to the time.  There's also a sense of speed when driving that you really feel, and I think that's where Walter Salles direction really came into play.  You also experience all the seasons they go through.  When you see them driving in the hot sun, you can't help but notice how sweaty and dirty they are.  I can only imagine what the inside of that car smelled like.  I hope they stopped to shower on their trips.

I was annoyed by the Beatnik, bongo music I heard throughout.  They say that Beatniks were the original hipsters, and after watching On the Road I can see how there are some similarities, and I dislike their style and music as equally as modern hipsters.  I've heard that Kerouac's book has been very influential and praised for it's style, but I don't think Jose Rivera's screenplay captured any of that.  If there was any energy to Kerouac's writing, that's all been sucked out of the film.

On the Road is a good looking, well-acted film, but for a story about living life, it sure felt lifeless.  There's no passion to it, and I didn't like any of the characters as they were portrayed.  It's way too long for what it is, and would recommend you take the two hours you could spend watching On the Road to go out and start an adventure of your own.

2 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (2012) - Movie Review

Yawn...

I'm only kidding.  Twilight: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 isn't that bad.  In fact, it's easily the best of the Twilight franchise, but that's like saying that Hurricane Katrina is only like the fifth worst natural disaster in the US.  Yes, the Twilight series is a natural disaster that the world may never recover from.

I turn around during the all the screaming during the opening credits, and I see a guy in a Raiders jersey sitting with his girlfriend with this look on his face.  I can only call it 'regret'.  There are moments where if you're willing to brave the crowds, you may find yourself regretting seeing this so soon, or plugging your ears.  Hell, I saw people who wanted to be there plugging their ears at points.

All kidding aside, it's really not that bad.  It's still not a particularly good movie though, but it seems that they finally realized how silly this all is and went with it.  There's actually a good amount of laughs in the movie, especially in the first half.  Some of this is intentional, and some of it is was more unintentionally hilarity.  I can't hate it too much for that, because even the audience seemed to be aware of it.

So, when we last left Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart), Bella gives birth to Renesmee (a name I really hope that people don't start giving their kids), and is finally turned into a vampire.  Bella has to also deal with the weirdness of Jacob (Taylor Lautner) imprinting on their infant daughter.  Renesmee is rapidly growing (Mackenzie Foy), and the Volturi become aware of her and believe she's a threat.  Alice (Ashley Greene) has a vision that the Volturi are coming for her, so the Cullens gather other vampire clans to rally and prepare for the inevitable showdown. Carlisle (Peter Facinelli) hopes they can avoid a conflict, but where's the fun in that, right?

As more vampires arrive, we find that many of them have a superpower that normally you wouldn't attribute to vampires.  Even the others seemed to be surprised by what they could do.  It's like they were making an X-Men movie with how diverse their powers were, but then remembered this was a movie about werewolves and vampires.   Speaking of diversity, another thing that I found silly about this was that each clan that arrived was a total ethnic or cultural stereotype.  It's not offensive, but it was just kind of ridiculous at times.

While this is happening, Bella is learning to use her new powers.  This is a part of the film that irritated me in that Twilight tries to convince you that someone that's been a vampire for a few days/weeks is somehow stronger that someone that's been a vampire for years, or even decades. It goes against everything I've ever seen in vampire lore.  They also have to remind Bella how to be human again, and it was hilarious to see them remind Bella to blink, which is ironic considering how much Kristen Stewart blinked during the previous movies.  It felt like that was another example of the film being self-aware.

I wish I could tell you there's more to the story, but that's honestly all there is to it.  There's still no reason Part 1 and Part 2 couldn't have been easily edited into a single movie, but I get it: money. The pacing is languid for the first three-quarters.  It's just lots of boring conversation and people just setting around.  Many scenes go nowhere, and simply did not need to be in the film.  We all know what's coming, so just get to it.

Now this part is going to be a bit of spoiler, so skip to the next paragraph if you don't want anything spoiled. The ending of this film is a total cop-out.  I won't say exactly what happens, but the way it plays out, it basically means there was never any real consequence or sacrifice by anyone in the story.  It really undercut the film, and ruined the one truly tense sequence of the entire movie series.  It's especially irritating because this was the only part where I actually cared about what was happening, and then it's all gone.

I will say that that final 10-15 minutes of the movie are genuinely entertaining, and they got away with the maximum amount of violence you could probably throw into a PG-13 movie.  They even seemed to save all the best effects for that final sequence.  On the other hand, the special effects outside of that final battle were absolutely terrible.  They used CG in places where they could have just used practical effects, and it would have looked 10 times better.  What's wrong, were you trying to maximize profits by spending the absolute minimum you could to make the film? Seriously, there was stuff that looked worse than YouTube videos or commercials I've seen recently.  Hell, at one point they have a CG baby.  A baby!  You couldn't just use an actual baby? Plus, they used special effects where you didn't need to.  Vampires constantly use their super-speed power to simply walk across the room for no reason.  It didn't add anything to the story, and it just felt lazy.

I'm not going to say anything about the acting at this point, because you know what you're going to get by now.  I will say that I enjoyed more of the supporting characters.  Lee Pace (Pushing Daisies) has a small, but enjoyable role.  Billy Burke does well, but takes a back seat again even though he's kicking ass on Revolution.  Michael Shannon is back as Aro, and he's so over the top that it was hard to not enjoy his screen time. Even "Bunk" from The Wire shows up for a cameo.

I have to credit director Bill Condon and writer Melissa Rosenberg for finally making something out of this.  Granted, there's only so much they can do with the story and dialog since the source material is so weak, but they were at least able to minimize the awfulness as much as they could. I was ready to give up after what they did with Part 1.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 succeeds simply because it's the first of the series that I didn't hate.  It is honestly the best of the series and I guess there's something to be said for going out on a high note.  It does suffer from awful special effects, slow pacing and the same bad acting and dialog, but what else can we expect at this point?  Fans should be pleased, and if you're someone that gets dragged to this by your girlfriend, just stay strong until that last 15 minutes.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) - Movie Review

Early on in Snow White and the Huntsman, the Evil Queen stares into the magic mirror and says her famous line, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, who is fairest of them all?"  The CG-mirror comes alive and says, "You, Charlize, you're the fairest.  Duh!"  Then the movie fades to black and the credits roll.  Total running time: 7 minutes.  Okay, that isn't what really happens, but it would have been funny if it did.

This year we get not one, but two, updated editions of the Snow White story.  Just two months ago, we had Mirror Mirror (you can read my review here), and now we have Snow White and the Huntsman.  Where Mirror Mirror was a light and silly version of the story, Snow White and the Huntsman tries to tell a darker and more violent version.  Neither really deviates from the established story we're all familiar with at this point, so there's no need to go into the plot.

The good news is that Snow White and the Huntsman is a better movie than Mirror Mirror.  Like Mirror Mirror, it's a great looking film.  The set and costume design, along with the makeup and special effects are all top notch.  There are some great looking creatures and many interesting things to look at throughout.  However, while I appreciate the fact they tried to do something a little different, in a lot of ways it felt like this was just a Lord of the Rings or Narnia knockoff.  Don't get me wrong, I like they made a Snow White film that focuses on those fantasy elements and brings a little more action.  If their goal was to make a version that appealed to guys more, then I think they succeeded.

One of the cooler aspects of SWatH is what they did with the dwarves.  They cast regular-sized actors in the roles, but through the magic of special effects shrunk them down to size.  Many of them, despite being played by well known actors, were almost unrecognizable.  I had to watch the credits just to make sure I was right about a few of them.  Partially due to the quality of the actors playing the dwarves (Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Toby Jones, Nick Frost, Bob Hoskins, etc.), they seemed more serious and less jokey than what we've seen in other versions of Snow White.  It's unfortunate they wait so long to introduce them, as I think we're well past that halfway point before they're brought in, but they end up being one of the stronger aspects of the movie.

Charlize Theron gives it her all as Queen Revenna, but I expected nothing less.  I've said it before, but it always seems like actors have more fun playing the evil character.  There's more to sink your teeth into and play with emotionally.  I do think Theron was just on the edge of overdoing it a bit, but she's still the most memorable performance.

I actually didn't mind Kristen Stewart for a change, despite my initial concerns that she had been miscast as Snow White.  I don't know if it was from the direction or her fixing some of her tics, but she certainly seemed to cut back on the excessive blinking and shivering that's plagued her other performances.  I coined the term 'chihuahua acting' a few years ago when describing what she always reminded me of.  I still wish her default expression wasn't an open mouth stare, as if she's a mouth-breather.  I thought she did a good job with the accent and emoting a little more, but I didn't find her character all that interesting.  She's just kind of there, but I don't really blame that on her performance.

Chris Hemsworth did a good job as the Huntsman, but I felt his character was a little one-dimensional.  In fact, I don't recall if they ever actually say his name during the movie other than call him 'Huntsman'.  Outside of the Queen, pretty much all of the characters seemed a little flat, and you don't really learn much about them.  Here's another movie where we have a trio of writers (Evan Daugherty, John Lee Hancock, and Hossein Amini), but somehow it all felt underwritten.

I think the lack of character development is magnified by the fact that the movie, at 127 minutes, is at least 20 minutes too long.  As the movie slugs along, these flaws are magnified.  We all know how the story is going to play out, so why stretch it?  This is where I think director Rupert Sanders let the movie get away from him a bit.  It's a good effort for a first time director though, and I'm sure he's going to get more chances after this to show what he can do.  Had he tightened the run time a bit, this would have been so much better.

Overall, Snow White and the Huntsman is a great looking and fairly entertaining movie.  It's flawed, but not so much that I left feeling disappointed or like I wasted my time with it.  It has a broader appeal than Mirror Mirror due to it's tone and action focus.  However, at PG-13, the dark and violent nature of this version might be a little too much for young kids.  I put this movie in the matinee range.

3 (out or 5) - Death Stars